States looking into Secession

doing a quick Google search on Secession brought me to articles about 3 different states all in the Secession game. the linked article above was the best though, so i will discuss it's contents.

first of all, the general idea here is to eliminate the power of the federal gov't. i'm sure they still want all the money from Washington, but they don't want to comply with federal law. they think that they should be able to legislate their state as they see fit, without any pesky Constitutional interference.

what do they want? no gun regulation, no recognition of gay marriage, no abortions, no environmental policies, no separation of church and state, and no hate crime laws. at least for openers.

what a list! i'm not sure how they left out the ability to teach Creationism, but i guess that's covered under the whole reinterpretation of the Establishment Clause.

while this Bill will never pass, and even if it were it would be thrown out by the Courts (i assume). but i have a bigger question that has been popping into my mind recently - should we let them leave?

personally, i'd love to just tell them good luck and never look back. morally, i have problems with abandoning the non-crazy folks who live there. but how could you want to remain in a state that keeps going backwards like this? shouldn't you want to get out? or is it the responsibility of the rest of the Nation to lift them from their state of ignorance? at this point, i'm not even sure that it is possible. they are lost, and i fear there is no hope of them ever becoming found.

i'm sorry, but who hates America again? these are your so called "Patriots"?

"But this ballot measure would go much farther than most other Tenther proposals, essentially sanctioning the philosophy of sovereign citizens — radical anti-government activists who believe they can unilaterally secede from the the state, stop paying taxes, and live by their own rules."

what do they want? no gun regulation, no recognition of gay marriage, no abortions, no environmental policies, no separation of church and state, and no hate crime laws. at least for openers.

As to their ilk: if they feel (as I suppose) that they aren't really true Americans because of this, let them secede. Good riddance. These are the values of third world autocracies, not of America.

However: Secession and partition of the US is not just an extreme-right Tea Party ideal, some of the progressive states (Vermont, most prominent among them) also have a huge secession movement.

Hawaii and Alaska, due to its geographical isolation, also have secession movements and in fact Sarah Palin's husband was pro-independence.

There's also a movement to turn northern California into Jefferson State, and another movement to divide California into a North Cali and South Cali (although there's already a Baja California in Mexico).

If Puerto Rico and DC become states, this may turn the movements that wish to turn larger states into multiple smaller states mainstream. This would assist in more accurately having the amounts of residents in each state be represented in our political system. Also, smaller states are easier to administer and their govts are nearer to the people and more approachable: smaller states are more governable and more democratic: the people have more say.

When the country was founded, the original colonies were supposed to be semi-sovereign states who worked together as equals. Maybe instead of discussions of secession, the constitutional rights of the states should be upheld and there should be 60 or more states instead of 50.

There are many (mostly in the Libertarian movement) that favor an increase in the amounts of US states instead of secession.

“Maybe instead of discussions of secession, the constitutional rights of the states should be upheld and there should be 60 or more states instead of 50.”

Not sure of any specific Constitutional "rights” granted to States, but aside from secessionist silliness, these are ideas that have been discussed before, and seem, at least to my superficial understanding, Constitutionally sound.

I am of the notion that the founders would approve of having more representation by having more states affording more political access to more people.

That I might be in agreement with Libertarians, however, gives me pause.

I have not read advocating increasing the number of States in any Libertarian literature. Then, again, I don’t really pay that close attention to the paranoia of the government from the extreme right.

Of course it won't happen. At least not for right wing-nuts. Look at Gov. Prick Perry of Texas. After he called for Texas secession, he became a short-lived "contender" for the GOP Presidential nomination. Which of course, begs the question. Why do you want to be President of a country which you do not wish to be affiliated with?

I dont think it would be considered treason. Seems to me that I read something a few years ago about Montana threatening to secede if there were gun bans. Their reasoning was that when they joined the US there was a contract..that contract was the US Constitution. If that constitution were to be circumvened, that would mean that the contract was null and void. Therefore Montana could say that it was a breach of contract and no longer enforcable. Thus allowing them to become a separate entity once again..

i'm not aware of any contract that states have with the US. each state is a part of the Union, period. they aren't allowed to break federal laws and they are not allowed to leave. i'm pretty sure the Civil War settled that argument.